ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare order passed in Rc.No.928/2006/A5 dated 29.9.2007 by respondent No.2, wherein he declined to renew Fonn-2B Licence under the A.P. Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, 'the Rules'), as illegal. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to consider its application for renewal of bar licence.

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The petitioner was a lessee of the premises in question, namely, Door No.263-128 NRP Road, Ghandi Nagar, Vijayawada, in which it was running a bar and restaurant. It approached respondent No.2 for renewal of its bar licence for the year 2007-2008. While the petitioner's application for renewal was pending, respondent No.2 received representation dated 16.6.2007 from respondent No.3, wherein the latter objected to the petitioner's application for grant of renewal on the ground that he purchased the building of which the premises in question is a part under registered sale deed dated 4.12.2006 from its original owners Sri J.M Patel and five others and that the petitioner has not obtained any lease agreement from him, who has become the absolute owner of the said premises. On receipt of the said representation, respondent No.2 evidently issued memo bearing Rc.No.928/06/A5 dated 6.7.2007, wherein he informed the petitioner that his application for renewal suffers from a lacuna in view of non-production of lease deed. Thereafter, respondent No.2 vide his proceedings dated 29.9.2007 rejected the petitioner's application for renewal on the ground that he failed to produce the lease deed executed by the owner of the property. This order is assailed in this writ petition.

3. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2 and 3.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Vijayawada (West Circle), Krishna District, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is stated that rejection of renewal was sought to be justified on the ground of non-production of lease deed by the petitioner. It is asserted that all the conditions applicable for grant of Licence equally apply for renewal of Licence. It is averred that under sub-rule (4) of Rule 9-A of the Rules, the licensee is required to enter into a counterpart agreement in Form-4B, which in turn stipulates that the licensee shall abide by the Rules and that Rule 6(vi) of the Rules stipulates that the applicant shall produce the' lease deed on a stamp paper for the proposed licensed premises from its owner.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, he termed the petitioner's claim that it purchased the property in question from its original owners under an oral agreement of sale as being far from the truth and hard to believe. He described the five civil suits, namely, O.S. Nos.869 to 873 of 2007 filed by the petitioner against the original owners as frivolous and vexatious. He contended that unless and until the petitioner succeeds in the said suits, he will not be entitled to any relief in the writ petition. Respondent No.3 claimed that he purchased the entire building in which the disputed premises located under seven registered sale deeds on 4.12.2006 and that the same was within the knowledge of the petitioner as evident from letter 18.5.2007 addressed by the original owner to the petitioner. He pleaded that there is no order passed in favour of the petitioner in the pending suits in respect of the premises in dispute and that the interim order of injunction granted in O.S. No.578 of 1995, is in respect of 700 square feet and that the said suit was filed on behalf of Vikram Travels and the petitioner has nothing to do with the same. Respondent No.3 adopted the stand of respondent No.2 with regard to the requirement of existence of a lease deed for renewal of the licence.

6. At the hearing, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel for the pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document